Roo2 said:
ω = 2 π s, where s = k/λ. k is the integer frequency multiplier of the wave, and λ is the wavelength. For this non-periodic function, λ = ∞; therefore, s is infinitesimal. Is it valid to make the argument that since ω is 2π * an infinitesimal, x = (2π)/2 * an infinitesimal, so x = ω and therefore FT = sinc^2(ω)?
I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here.
It is true that (reasonably well behaved) periodic functions can be represented by a Fourier series, which involves terms with ##\omega = 2\pi k /\lambda## where ##k## is any integer.
For a non-periodic function, we need a "continuum" of ##\omega## values. But outside of nonstandard analysis, we don't talk about infinitesimals as they are not well defined.
If you are trying to work out whether the answer should be ##\text{sinc}^2(\omega/2)## or ##\text{sinc}^2(\omega)##, that depends on how ##\text{sinc}## is defined. This doesn't appear to be completely standardized. According to
Wikipedia, there are at least two definitions in common use:
$$\text{sinc}(x) = \frac{\sin(x)}{x}$$
and
$$\text{sinc}(x) = \frac{\sin(\pi x)}{\pi x}$$
It would not surprise me if there are other conventions as well. Similarly, there is no universal consensus regarding the definition of the Fourier transform. Some authors move the various ##2\pi## factors around, or invert the signs on the complex exponential, etc. Best to check your textbook or instructor's notes to see what definition you should be using. Or, to be on the safe side, just leave the answer in the form ##\sin^2(\omega/2)/(\omega/2)^2##.